Bunting & Anor v Blaney & Anor (No. 2: Best Practice) [2025] NICA 67 (24 October 2025)

Bunting & Anor v Blaney & Anor (No. 2: Best Practice) [2025] NICA 67 (24 October 2025)

The Court of Appeal held that grounds of appeal and respondent's notices must be formulated with clarity, specificity, and conciseness, avoiding vague, argumentative, or repetitive language. The court provided detailed best practice guidance, warning that persistent non-compliance may result in strike out or adverse costs. The deficiencies in Excel's respondent's notice necessitated repeated adjournments and wasted judicial resources, demonstrating the need for strict adherence to proper pleading standards.

Citation
[2025] NICA 67
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Robert Bunting; Plaintiff/respondent: Excel–A–Rate Business Services Limited; First Defendant: Eamon Blaney; Second Defendant/appellant: Carmel Blaney
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
24 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Best Practice in Formulation of Grounds of Appeal and Respondent's Notices
Outcome
Guidance judgment issued; no substantive orders on the merits of the underlying appeal.
Legal Topics
Appeals, Pleadings, Case Management, Best Practice
Civil Procedure Appeals Pleadings Case Management Best Practice

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Bunting

Plaintiff/respondent

Excel–A–Rate Business Services Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Eamon Blaney

First Defendant

Carmel Blaney

Second Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Best Practice in Formulation of Grounds of Appeal and Respondent's Notices

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What constitutes proper formulation of grounds of appeal and respondent's notices in the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland?
  2. 2 What are the consequences of defective pleadings in appellate proceedings?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that grounds of appeal and respondent's notices must be formulated with clarity, specificity, and conciseness, avoiding vague, argumentative, or repetitive language. The court provided detailed best practice guidance, warning that persistent non-compliance may result in strike out or adverse costs. The deficiencies in Excel's respondent's notice necessitated repeated adjournments and wasted judicial resources, demonstrating the need for strict adherence to proper pleading standards.

Court Disposition

Guidance judgment issued; no substantive orders on the merits of the underlying appeal.

Orders

  • Best practice guidance for formulation of grounds of appeal and respondent's notices issued.
  • No strike out ordered in this instance, but warning given for future cases.